Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[Thomas Shey]

Regarding dungeon crawls, even in the old days most dungeon crawls were mostly composed of what PF2e would call Trivial and Low Encounters, with the occasional exception for a big set-piece that you'd have to work your way through to find. In particular the random encounters were normally weak.

 

[kenada]

Escape rules and reaction tables as well as XP for gold (traditional method where you bring it back, not the one where you trade it for XP) are all old-school things that can be added to PF2 fairly easy. Combined, they give PCs more control over how they engage with encounters and incentivize them to avoid fights. Another thing that helps are morale rules, so not every fight is to the death but just enough to drive off the enemy.

There are probably other things one can borrow, but those are what came to mind for helping run an old-school dungeon crawl in PF2. To integrate escape, one should start off the encounter by rolling on the reaction table (as appropriate) and find out what the PCs do (parley, escape, fight, etc). Don’t just jump straight into combat. If the PCs do decide to run, switch to the chase subsystem and allow PCs to create obstacles for pursuers by dropping food and treasure (as appropriate for the monster).

 

[kenada]

Its not hard for me to imagine a variant of "Dungeon Crawl" like "Old School Dungeon Crawl" where combining encounters is mentioned, but it mainly features "Trivial/Low/Moderate" encounters as the modular pieces that might fit together. Its even evident that not all of these recipes feature extreme encounters in any capacity, and some feature limited use of severe encounters.

That’d be good for handling a dynamic response to the PCs presence in the dungeon, but I wouldn’t use only that. There’s also wandering monsters (as already noted). If you give the PCs tools to control their engagement in encounters, then the guidelines for encounter building become a bit more advisory because the PCs can pull back and retreat if two encounters combine into something particularly dangerous.

Of course, the real struggle will be training players to stop assuming that the PCs should expect to win every fight, and that they have to engage smartly if they want to survive.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That’d be good for handling a dynamic response to the PCs presence in the dungeon, but I wouldn’t use only that. There’s also wandering monsters (as already noted). If you give the PCs tools to control their engagement in encounters, then the guidelines for encounter building become a bit more advisory because the PCs can pull back and retreat if two encounters combine into something particularly dangerous.

Of course, the real struggle will be training players to stop assuming that the PCs should expect to win every fight, and that they have to engage smartly if they want to survive.

Especially since even in the old days, plenty of groups didn't assume retreating was a practical choice, given relative movement speeds.

 

[kenada]

Especially since even in the old days, plenty of groups didn't assume retreating was a practical choice, given relative movement speeds.

Retreat definitely needs to be a viable option if it’s offered.

If players worry that it’s not, then one may want to handle it like a concession in Fate: you are guaranteed to survive, but you'll pay a price. However, instead of having the winning side decide, I think it’d be better to negotiate with the players what the PCs will give up to effect their escape. I expect it should look the same as just doing it ‘normally’ most of the time, but the players won’t have to worry that it can fail. (This assumes one doesn’t use the chase subsystem, which may be too heavyweight for this purpose.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

I just tend to emphasize that because the only way retreating was possible for heavily armored characters in the Bad Old Days was to make specific use of a couple of (apparently dungeon-specific) rules that almost no one noticed, so no one assumed. Its an intrinsic problem barring, as you say, something like a chase system since otherwise things appear to come down to mostly who has the better movement--and in a pretty fair number of cases that's not at least one of the PCs. People tend to make decisions accordingly.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Retreat definitely needs to be a viable option if it’s offered.

If players worry that it’s not, then one may want to handle it like a concession in Fate: you are guaranteed to survive, but you'll pay a price. However, instead of having the winning side decide, I think it’d be better to negotiate with the players what the PCs will give up to effect their escape. I expect it should look the same as just doing it ‘normally’ most of the time, but the players won’t have to worry that it can fail.

That's a pretty interesting way of doing it.

(This assumes one doesn’t use the chase subsystem, which may be too heavyweight for this purpose.)

The chase subsystem as a general structure isn't too bad, though you definitely need to make up some area options beforehand, or at least have a few ideas. Reminds me of something I'll mention in a minute.

I just tend to emphasize that because the only way retreating was possible for heavily armored characters in the Bad Old Days was to make specific use of a couple of (apparently dungeon-specific) rules that almost no one noticed, so no one assumed.

Gotta ask, what were the rules? I played a bit of AD&D, but I was always with guys who had played it for years so I never actually looked too much at the rules.

Its an intrinsic problem barring, as you say, something like a chase system since otherwise things appear to come down to mostly who has the better movement--and in a pretty fair number of cases that's not at least one of the PCs. People tend to make decisions accordingly.

So recently I was watching Critical Role because when I'm doing GM prep work I just get inspired by having the subject on in the background. So they were on some island and after the dungeon part of the adventure there was a chase sequence where Mercer decided to do a classic 4E Skill Challenge. It was interesting to watch, since I'm not sure it fully succeeded and it really started dragging after a while. But it was interesting to see it live and in action (relatively speaking) and compare it to what I've done in the past. I'd be interesting in seeing PF2's chase system in actual action, or something like the Fate system that was described.

 

[CapnZapp]

Escape rules and reaction tables as well as XP for gold (traditional method where you bring it back, not the one where you trade it for XP) are all old-school things that can be added to PF2 fairly easy. Combined, they give PCs more control over how they engage with encounters and incentivize them to avoid fights. Another thing that helps are morale rules, so not every fight is to the death but just enough to drive off the enemy.

Yes, the GM improvising Will saves when enemies are bloodied or lose numerical advantage etc is easy.

Escape rules I've never gotten to work in satisfactory ways. The players feel it's abstract or even cheating if the standard rules no longer apply. Especially if it means they're denied the satisfaction of not letting a single foe get away! (Some players even focus on movement precisely so they're faster than any fleeing monster, and would protest if the regular rules for movement and stealth aren't used. Especially in 5E this all but ensured escape for hapless monsters were impossible. In PF2, not so much, since often players are relieved and thankful if a monster decides to leg it!

Related to this is the notion heroes want to avoid fights. In 5E players certainly relish fights - in D&D this idea has always been corrupted by simply fights being an award, not a punishment (like in more realistic or at least less levelbased games). At least in PF2 monsters are so deadly that the fights you cannot avoid are often enough...

How do you implement xp for gold, Kenada? Exactly, I mean. In PF2 you have a functioning magic item economy, and if you retain the standard xp system, you will quickly be able to gain a level just by selling a random loot drop.

 

[CapnZapp]

Retreat definitely needs to be a viable option if it’s offered.

If players worry that it’s not, then one may want to handle it like a concession in Fate: you are guaranteed to survive, but you'll pay a price.

This is a main reason for me replacing the default hero points with something with real narrative power - essentially just renamed Warhammer FRP fate points:

Pay a fate point and you're guaranteed personal survival.

 

[kenada]

I just tend to emphasize that because the only way retreating was possible for heavily armored characters in the Bad Old Days was to make specific use of a couple of (apparently dungeon-specific) rules that almost no one noticed, so no one assumed. Its an intrinsic problem barring, as you say, something like a chase system since otherwise things appear to come down to mostly who has the better movement--and in a pretty fair number of cases that's not at least one of the PCs. People tend to make decisions accordingly.

Yep. The goal here is to emphasize to the players that those rules will be used, and they will be able to escape if they choose to do that.

That's a pretty interesting way of doing it.

Thanks. Just to be clear, it’s basically just pursuit rules with the guarantee that PCs will succeed if they try to escape (just need to figure out how). It’s not intended as a general concession mechanism, though I don’t think it would be a problem if PCs tried to escape in the middle of a fight (but the price would have to be higher).

The chase subsystem as a general structure isn't too bad, though you definitely need to make up some area options beforehand, or at least have a few ideas. Reminds me of something I'll mention in a minute.

Having to do some prep work is why I wonder if it’s too heavyweight. If we’re talking about adding random encounters, then it needs to be something a GM can easily use to allow PCs to get away from a random encounter.

Gotta ask, what were the rules? I played a bit of AD&D, but I was always with guys who had played it for years so I never actually looked too much at the rules.

I can’t speak to AD&D or OD&D, but OSE’s (B/X) are linked above. I’ll inline them here. Note that turns are defined as ten minutes long. Turns are divided into 60 rounds (each 10 seconds long).

Evasion​

Compare the two sides’ movement rates:

• Fleeing side faster: The evasion automatically succeeds, unless the fleeing side is forced to stop.
• Fleeing side not faster: A pursuit occurs.

Pursuit​

Time: Is measured in rounds (see Time, Weight, Movement).
Running: Each side is assumed to be running at full speed (see below).
Line of sight: Most monsters will not continue a pursuit if the characters get out of the monster’s range of vision.
Dropping treasure: If the monsters enjoy treasure, there is a 3-in-6 probability that they will stop pursuit to collect any treasure the characters drop.
Dropping food: Hungry or less intelligent monsters may stop pursuit if characters drop food (3-in-6 chance).
Obstacles: Burning oil or other obstacles may also slow or stop a pursuit.

Running​

Movement rate: During a pursuit, characters run at their full movement rate in feet per round.
Mapping: Is not possible while running.
Exhaustion: Characters become exhausted after running for 30 rounds.
Effects of exhaustion: A –2 penalty to attacks, damage, and Armour Class.
Resting: The penalties for exhaustion last until characters have rested for three full turns.

So recently I was watching Critical Role because when I'm doing GM prep work I just get inspired by having the subject on in the background. So they were on some island and after the dungeon part of the adventure there was a chase sequence where Mercer decided to do a classic 4E Skill Challenge. It was interesting to watch, since I'm not sure it fully succeeded and it really started dragging after a while. But it was interesting to see it live and in action (relatively speaking) and compare it to what I've done in the past. I'd be interesting in seeing PF2's chase system in actual action, or something like the Fate system that was described.

There’s some discussion of VP-based systems on page 2 of the exploration thread here. It’s not restricted to chase, but there’s a chase at the end of this recap post.

Escape rules I've never gotten to work in satisfactory ways. The players feel it's abstract or even cheating if the standard rules no longer apply. Especially if it means they're denied the satisfaction of not letting a single foe get away! (Some players even focus on movement precisely so they're faster than any fleeing monster, and would protest if the regular rules for movement and stealth aren't used. Especially in 5E this all but ensured escape for hapless monsters were impossible. In PF2, not so much, since often players are relieved and thankful if a monster decides to leg it!

The escape rules are only for the PCs. It’s a way to communicate to the players that they can escape if they get into trouble. As discussed above, you’d play it out at the table (most likely using theater of the mind). If an enemy tried to flee, you’d just keep doing things normally. However, if that resulted in running straight into a room full of guards ready to attack, then they’d have the ability to retreat. There will be a cost to it, but it’s less than “well, you failed to stop the guy from fleeing, so we have to tear up everyone’s characters and make new ones”.

Related to this is the notion heroes want to avoid fights. In 5E players certainly relish fights - in D&D this idea has always been corrupted by simply fights being an award, not a punishment (like in more realistic or at least less levelbased games). At least in PF2 monsters are so deadly that the fights you cannot avoid are often enough...

The goal is to give players a way to control the engagement and get out of trouble, especially if we’re allowing for encounters to combine or even be just too difficult to fight head-on. Implicit in this is the expectation that combat be devalued. If the players keep assuming everything is there to fight, then it may be necessary to reduce XP from defeating monsters and to supply it through other means (accomplishments, treasure, relationships, whatever other than combat).